News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Just to stir the pudding...NE climbers tend to have a rep elsewhere, like anywhere south of here, as being a bit full of themselves and their rock for less than adequate reasons. Probably goes back to Webster's guides and his assertion that the choss pile, er, Cannon, is the biggest wall in the East (ignorance) and that Whitehorse is the best friction in the east (laughable). There's some great stuff up here, but, for instance, when I first went to Cathedral my reaction was, 'So this is the famous Cathedral Ledge? Cool. It would be in the top ten in NC. Somewhere between #5 and #10.' Let the flames begin.

And I've never met any climber, anywhere, who didn't have the attitude that 'if you can climb [in my local region], you can climb anywhere.' So you're right, travel is key.

darwined

And I've never met any climber, anywhere, who didn't have the attitude that 'if you can climb [in my local region], you can climb anywhere.' So you're right, travel is key.

Biggest? nope. Best ? Prolly not. But I can't say I've traveled to too many places where I thought, "Man, this seems hard for the grade". That's not to say that moment isn't coming, I'm still fairly green.

I think the last part of your post is more about the diversity of terrain, rock, ice, and alpine choss.

And I've never met any climber, anywhere, who didn't have the attitude that 'if you can climb [in my local region], you can climb anywhere.' So you're right, travel is key.

Biggest? nope. Best ? Prolly not. But I can't say I've traveled to too many places where I thought, "Man, this seems hard for the grade". That's not to say that moment isn't coming, I'm still fairly green.

I think the last part of your post is more about the diversity of terrain, rock, ice, and alpine choss.

There's only 2 places that I've been to where the routes are overall hard for the grade. The Adirondacks, and Lookout Mtn, Georgia.

And I've never met any climber, anywhere, who didn't have the attitude that 'if you can climb [in my local region], you can climb anywhere.' So you're right, travel is key.

Biggest? nope. Best ? Prolly not. But I can't say I've traveled to too many places where I thought, "Man, this seems hard for the grade". That's not to say that moment isn't coming, I'm still fairly green.

I think the last part of your post is more about the diversity of terrain, rock, ice, and alpine choss.

There's only 2 places that I've been to where the routes are overall hard for the grade. The Adirondacks, and Lookout Mtn, Georgia.

I think it just has to do with when a cliff was developed and how much of a backwater it was. Seneca, Daks, a lot of stuff at the Glass (Tits & Beer: 5.8. QED), the older sandstone areas in the SE like Sunset all went up at an earlier time and with an attitude that it was worse to overgrade than undergrade. (When we were developing Reel Cove, just another multi-mile continuous 150' vertical cliff in TN, we agreed that you should rate a new route at the lowest grade you can without laughing, which I still think is the best way to go). I don't know Cathedral well enough yet, but I would guess that was true there as well, and I've heard that a lot of 5.9s (older routes) in Yosemite are a lot harder than a lot of the newer 5.10s. I know when I started it was much more desirable to put up a route that was so scary that people would shit themselves walking beneath it rather than just a put up a high number (of course, best was both). Today the mindset is totally different, especially at sport areas, which results in places like Foster Falls and especially Shelf Road, CO, which is a world class joke.

There's only 2 places that I've been to where the routes are overall hard for the grade. The Adirondacks, and Lookout Mtn, Georgia.[/quote]

You have obviously never been to Connecticut. Maybe the grades have found more reality now, but Nichols complained to the guidebook author (Mellor) in writing about how soft the Adirondack grades were. Of course he never did anything hard without toproping it 250 times.

There's only 2 places that I've been to where the routes are overall hard for the grade. The Adirondacks, and Lookout Mtn, Georgia.[/quote]

You have obviously never been to Connecticut. Maybe the grades have found more reality now, but Nichols complained to the guidebook author (Mellor) in writing about how soft the Adirondack grades were. Of course he never did anything hard without toproping it 250 times.[/quote]

I don't know Cathedral well enough yet, but I would guess that was true there as well, and I've heard that a lot of 5.9s (older routes) in Yosemite are a lot harder than a lot of the newer 5.10s. I know when I started it was much more desirable to put up a route that was so scary that people would shit themselves walking beneath it rather than just a put up a high number (of course, best was both). Today the mindset is totally different, especially at sport areas, which results in places like Foster Falls and especially Shelf Road, CO, which is a world class joke.

Before, I heard that the highest grade doesn't exist and they rate a route like: "anythink which are not 5.8 is 5.9". So, as we have very good climber too in the earlier year, some 5.9 are really sand bag.

i agree also with the change of mentality. When you open a route today, people will remember that you open a 5.11 at a cliff, but they won't remember you. Before, they will said that it is a sand bag and asked who open it. As the climber community was smaller, more people will know each other and we will have a good idea of the rating of the route.

I heard that a route, like royal arches in yosemite, rating 5.7 with a move of A0, was called a 5.6 are more than 90 % of the route is 5.6. is it what you said when they rate at the lowest level? I also think that they rate the route as follow: all the move with three point of contact from larger hole to smaller 5.3 to 5.8. (all the move are done in balance); when a hole is missing and you need to use your body strenght because you can't balance is 5.8 to 5.10 (need a good knowledge of the lower grade to know when you are in balance or when you need your strenght as you can power up many move (5.5 at the top of lakeview); 5.11 to higher, you need to use your strenght on one good hole or a combination of two or three to climb and use your body as a lever to keep your equilibrum.

As today beginer is 5.9, I think that many of you won't agree or understand it.

"Use your body as a lever". Good stuff. Joe Landry was talking about core strength (shit to me then) in the early '90's. I did not understand the importance and advantage of core until much later. So key to climbing in control and efficiently.

Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Bob scarpelli- the OW god had a belly,, really,, it was fucking rock hard 18 pack for sure. Talk about core..... his OW , horizontal 5" above his bed was classic.. the former MRS Scarpelli " i wish you stay up that long with me"